An Analysis On The Tort Case Between Zhu Et Al And Fan Et Al Who Had Drinked Together

This article focuses on the nature and origin of the obligation of safety and security,the judgment of illegality of co-drinkers and administrators' omission in public places,and the judgment of causality between the act of non-fulfilment of obligations and victims' death from falling buildings.In judicial practice,the view of the court is divided on whether the co-drinker has the obligation of safety protection to other co-drinkers and the nature of this obligation.This paper argues that the previous act of co-drinking is the source of the obligation of safety protection between co-drinkers,and does not agree with the direct extension of the application of Article 37 of the Tort Law.In judging the content and degree of security obligations,there is no uniform criterion.This paper advocates that the criterion of ordinary people or good managers should be applied to specific judgments according to individual cases.The standard of common people applies to the general relationship between co-drinkers and there is no case of persuasion or forced drinking.The criteria of good managers are applicable to situations where persuasion and compulsion exist.We should pay attention to differentiating the content and degree of the safeguard obligation of different co-drinkers according to the difference of the causal force provided by co-drinkers to a certain co-drinker falling into the state of drunkenness.We should adhere to the principle of self-responsibility and focus on whether the co-drinker drinks actively or passively in the process of drinking.Moreover,the damage caused by co-drinking should meet the criteria of predictability.If it goes beyond the scope that co-drinkers may foresee,other co-drinkers will not be liable for infringement even if the damage occurs.In addition,the introduction of external judgment criteria for drunkenness or not is more operable and convenient,providing some reference for judicial practice.